|
The Peak Oil "problem" has always been all about whether human activity can safely transition away from its current oil-addicted state. 30 years ago we did not possess the technical ability to do this and it was a real scary prospect. Even 10 years we were just hoping. Only just now are we getting there, baby steps, but it's doable. Improvements to fracking bought us this time at the expense of the environment, maybe OPEC had underestimated strategic reserves that they're now dumping. Either way, we got it. Then what's the problem? The problem is... The problem is that nobody is loving doing anything. There are some very strong, very myopic, economic interests in sustaining the status quo combined with social inertia (can't do anything to threaten the comfortable western lifestyle!). Just like Climate Change. This is the same loving bullshit. And this is going to lead into one of two outcomes: a) We do it. We loving do it. The doomers were right. We floor it and drive this bitch right off the cliff. We hit Peak Oil, suddenly and without warning: production stops being able to keep up with demand, and prices skyrocket, wrecking the economy at a time when we most need wealth and stability in order to rebuild infrastructure, and thus be actually able to make do without oil in any kind of state resembling 'business as usual'. b) It pops. We realize that we can't rely on hydrocarbons forever, either because of depleting affordable reserves or because alternative technologies start appearing, and the Carbon Bubble explodes. Just goes *boom*. Big Oil collapses amidst investor uncertainty, wrecking the economy at a time when we most need wealth and stability in order to rebuild infrastructure, and thus be actually able to make do without oil in any kind of state resembling 'business as usual'. Capitalism is an oil-addicted pimp and Governments are its hoes. As I said, it's the same loving bullshit. We have a chance to evade an energy crisis with a measure of dignity, by enforcing sanity instead of relying on this myopic construct we dub 'the free market', but we won't. We won't and it's going to sodomize us without lube.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Thanks to everyone who posts really great information to this thread. When and where do you think the turning point was, where this could be all avoided? 1970s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Thanks to everyone who posts really great information to this thread. When and where do you think the turning point was, where this could be all avoided? 1970s? In the spring of 1789.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Thanks to everyone who posts really great information to this thread. When and where do you think the turning point was, where this could be all avoided? 1970s?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
TACD posted:More action earlier on would always have been better, but Al Gore winning in 2000 would be a pretty clean alternate history inflection point. kinda funny, back then I was apparently a stupid idiot because I didn't get it, and when I now think back to what actually happened I feel this creeping seething rage in me
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Thanks to everyone who posts really great information to this thread. When and where do you think the turning point was, where this could be all avoided? 1970s? The invention of the combustion engine. It got us to this point and its inordinate effectiveness and versatility is what is keeping us here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Thanks to everyone who posts really great information to this thread. When and where do you think the turning point was, where this could be all avoided? 1970s? John Michael Greer makes a good case that the West almost managed to make the turn early in the 1970s, with the Oil Crisis fresh in the mind of population, visible effects of environmental degredation everywhere, a massive resurgence of ecology in theory and practice and Jimmy Carter in the White House doing his best to do things for the environment. But then we collectively decided to gently caress the future in favour of the present and double down on the madness - maybe best symbolized in the election of Reagan, a guy who told the people exactly what they wanted to hear instead of challenging their expectations of the future. Accretionist posted:Every 'Peak Oil' poster I ever saw was based on misrepresenting 'reserves we can profitably pump' as 'all the oil that's left.' Thanks for absoluteley not reading the last pages where we discussed in detail the mechanics of EROEI and why this makes your expansive-to-extract- and expansive-to-prtocess oil absolutely useless to a stagnating economy. SavageGentleman fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Aug 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:The invention of the combustion engine. It got us to this point and its inordinate effectiveness and versatility is what is keeping us here. I've sometimes wondered, even if it was possible to go back in time to stop the invention of the engine, would someone else just invent it a few years later anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Peak oil already did happen. The inherent assumptions with the peak oil proposal was that it was for conventional oil, the oil we used at the time. And for conventional oil the theory held and worked. Why we didn't run out of oil is largely because of unconvential oil sources that we never anticipated we would use. Shale and tar sands as well as fischer tropsch and the continuing expanding of these industries is maintaining the supply of liquid fuels.  Ten points for anyone who can find the peak.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:I've sometimes wondered, even if it was possible to go back in time to stop the invention of the engine, would someone else just invent it a few years later anyway? Of course, the idea of taking fuel and combusting it to move something is gonna happen regardless. I think of the 2000 election as the last real chance we had at avoiding catastrophic climate change, but something could have been done earlier if one of the oil companies that knew about atmospheric carbon decades ahead of everyone else decided to do the right thing (hahahahahahaha) and say something about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
Gentle reminder that the industrial revolution and its attendant urbanization predate the internal combustion engine by at least 50 years. I'm genuinely confused about why the climate change thread is freaking out at the idea of no more oil to burn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:04
|
|
|
The idea was that it was a good thing for forcing us to move to clean energy by making us ditch oil, rather than freaking out about running out of it. People tend to get sidetracked by semantics and poo poo that doesn't really matter that much with regard to actual consequences. Regardless of who's definition of peak oil we may or may not have reached already or are going to reach in the future it seems pretty clear that we're still going to be putting enough carbon into the atmosphere to gently caress us over pretty decisively in the very near future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Gentle reminder that the industrial revolution and its attendant urbanization predate the internal combustion engine by at least 50 years. I really hope steampunk will never happen, it's just too stupid
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
Protip: We are going to burn all the oil and all the things that can be converted into liquid fuels, we will burn those too. Liquid fuels are just utterly amazing and energy dense and one of the most amazing things ever and we effectively have zero plan for when we cannot get enough of it to meet demands. YMMV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
energy technology is just the continuation of the study of fire. understandably, until now it's relied on finding more and more efficient things to burn. first it was wood, then it was coal, now it's oil, and the two non-oil options are either making a fuel-less fire (nuclear) or using the radiant energy from a fire far away (solar), neither of which are perfect because the former and all its byproducts break the laws of reality as we understand them and the latter is only available roughly 60% of the time. the future of energy lies in figuring out how to store it. we have the early stages in the forms of batteries, the only problem is that in the year 2017 batteries are completely hosed environmentally speaking and they can really hold gently caress-all energy compared to what we need them to hold. i don't think our current model of a battery is the one that we need to be using. it's fundamentally flawed and i blame computers for it. someone soon is going to discover some sort of energy-storing mechanism in some completely unexpected field that will change the energy game as we know it and then we will be safe from both peak oil and from the murderous side-effects of our addiction to fire
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
right now we think we need energy to keep the lights on. but fireflies keep their lights on without oil or coal. imagine if we could harness the power of the firelies
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
the old ceremony posted:someone soon is going to discover some sort of energy-storing mechanism in some completely unexpected field that will change the energy game as we know it and then we will be safe from both peak oil and from the murderous side-effects of our addiction to fire Or someone won't and we will be standing with our dicks in our hands expecting there to be a replacement for oil when there was never any real expectation for that to happen. But we are really straying from talking about climate change at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
The core problem is that the alternatives to liquid fuels currently used both suck. Nuclear powered any-kind of consumer class vehicle is just a non-starter and electricity is extremely hampered in its ability to scale by batteries-tech still not being what it needs to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Funny story: Lockheed started a program a couple years back for a compact fusion reactor that could fit on an airplane or freight vehicle. Turns out that doesn't work and the thing they're actually going to build weighs 2000 tons and is the size of two passenger buses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Funny story: Lockheed started a program a couple years back for a compact fusion reactor that could fit on an airplane or freight vehicle. Turns out that doesn't work and the thing they're actually going to build weighs 2000 tons and is the size of two passenger buses. I don't see the problem if we're talking freight. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I don't see the problem if we're talking freight. A freight truck.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Funny story: Lockheed started a program a couple years back for a compact fusion reactor that could fit on an airplane or freight vehicle. Turns out that doesn't work and the thing they're actually going to build weighs 2000 tons and is the size of two passenger buses. It was fission and the russians did that work too. Except the russians flew theirs. It wasn't a very good idea and only existed due to the niche capacity to stay aloft indefinitely for cold war reasons, icbms completely negated their relevance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Lithium ion batteries are an environmental problem because of circumstance. It's not baked into the technology. Cheap as s*** environmentally abusive Chinese mines cornered the market, that's not a problem with the technology.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Lithium ion batteries are an environmental problem because of circumstance. It's not baked into the technology. Cheap as s*** environmentally abusive Chinese mines cornered the market, that's not a problem with the technology. Oil would be a great energy source if not for those pesky circumstances we have no control over. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Nothing will be learned from this incoming Texas hurricane. Will there ever be a point where things will change?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Oil would be a great energy source if not for those pesky circumstances we have no control over. As in, circumstances concerning extraction? Or use? There's a difference between lithium an oil here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:Protip: We are going to burn all the oil and all the things that can be converted into liquid fuels, we will burn those too. Liquid fuels are just utterly amazing and energy dense and one of the most amazing things ever and we effectively have zero plan for when we cannot get enough of it to meet demands. YMMV. yea i operate on the heroin junky model here too. we will boil alberta whole and f-t every last patch of brown dirt we can.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:As in, circumstances concerning extraction? Or use? There's a difference between lithium an oil here. The environmental consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:The environmental consequences. So, with oil, mostly concerning the use side of the equation, with some spectacular opportunity for disasters on the extraction side. Lithium environmental (and humane) concerns seem to sit mostly on the extraction side, yes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
So, anyone seen Chasing Coral (its on Netflix)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Disposal is a huge issue with lithium, those batteries are not easily recycled and create huge amounts of toxic waste in the process. It's a super bad product cycle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
El Laucha posted:So, anyone seen Chasing Coral (its on Netflix)? Visually it's impressive but doesn't have much to offer beyond that. There's a scene where one of the photographers/producers uses a party boat to resupply and makes a "look at all these stupid sheeple," comment and it sort of highlights how much of a vanity project the whole film is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:It was fission and the russians did that work too. Except the russians flew theirs. It wasn't a very good idea and only existed due to the niche capacity to stay aloft indefinitely for cold war reasons, icbms completely negated their relevance. I'm aware of those, but I was talking about a much more recent project proposed in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:R I P EARTH 4.8 BYA-2018 Eh there'll be a brief cleansing fire that kills all humans, and within 5-10 million years newly-evolved megafauna will flourish in park-like subtropical landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2017 22:25
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Fascinating study. This is the largest meta-analysis ever conducted on organic farming, and the final nail in the coffin for the system's purported environmental claims. Organic farming uses 55% more land than mainstream agriculture, with all the contaminant loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation that entails, while achieving nothing in terms of reducing GHG emissions. This should be a wake-up call for people purporting organic, (or its arch-reactionary, pseudoscientific cousin permaculture), as an agricultural model for the future. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5/meta Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Fascinating study. This is the largest meta-analysis ever conducted on organic farming, and the final nail in the coffin for the system's purported environmental claims. Organic farming uses 55% more land than mainstream agriculture, with all the contaminant loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation that entails, while achieving nothing in terms of reducing GHG emissions. This should be a wake-up call for people purporting organic, (or its arch-reactionary, pseudoscientific cousin permaculture), as an agricultural model for the future. Just about the only alt-ag practice to show any promise environmentally is the ecofuturist system of aquaculture. CTRL+F "Permaculture": Zero results. quote:Previous analyses have shown that increasing nutrient application and adopting techniques such as rotational farming, cover cropping, multi-cropping, and polyculture in organic systems can halve the land use difference between organic and conventional systems (Seufert et al 2012, Ponisio et al 2014). Additionally, while the overall pattern is for higher land use in organic systems, organic systems have similar land use for legumes and perennial crops while the land use difference between organic and conventional systems is smaller in rain-fed systems and in systems with weakly-acidic to weakly-alkaline soils (Pimentel et al 2005, Seufert et al 2012). You gonna be as disingenuous as the pro-apocalypse crowd now, Thug Lessons? Gonna come over to the dark side to push your own lovely agenda? This is talking about agriculture on an industrial scale, it is absolutely impossible to do permaculture outside of smallholdings. Rime fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
he's been full of poo poo for like 100 pages don't expect it to stop now
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Rime posted:CTRL+F "Permaculture": Zero results. Permaculture isn't mentioned because there's practically no scientific study of it. There's two reasons for that: because permies don't want scientific study of their cult, and because it's so transparently wrong that it's not worth wasting time on. It's barely a step above the old Nazi system of biodynamics. quote:You gonna be as disingenuous as the pro-apocalypse crowd now, Thug Lessons? Gonna come over to the dark side to push your own lovely agenda? You're cherry-picking the CYA section of the article. If you really want I can go step-by-step I will, but to the main point: of course we should integrate the (limited) prospects organic offers into mainstream agriculture. For example the practice of aquaculture is praised, and I agree with that. However the main thrust of the article remains the same: organic as a whole has no clear net benefit over conventional. The quote you posted says, "this should not be taken as an indication that conventional systems are more sustainable than organic systems", but it's certainly a compelling blow against the opposite conclusion, that organic is more sustainable than conventional. Thug Lessons fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Rime posted:This is talking about agriculture on an industrial scale, it is absolutely impossible to do permaculture outside of smallholdings. It is impossible to do permaculture period but there is an ever-expanding mass of literature demonstrating that smallholdings are more inefficient than industrial-scale ag in every way, including resource usage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Rime posted:Disposal is a huge issue with lithium, those batteries are not easily recycled and create huge amounts of toxic waste in the process. It's a super bad product cycle. Dude, you've got absolutely no idea what you're talking about. EV batteries aren't thrown into the trash, they are almost always recycled (as they're by far the most valuable part of a wrecked/old EV). Tesla Powerwalls, for example, are made of recycled Tesla car batteries, and there's a robust market in Leaf battery cells amongst the off grid crew. And as the point has been repeatedly made to you, we could fix lithium mining problems, for the most part. We will never fix the issues with burning oil.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 01:31
|
|